Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

OPINION

In California, we forced the NCAA's hand on paying athletes. But more states must step up.

Likely, the NCAA realized it had to change course. Not only was the bill signed into law, but lawmakers from other states announced plans to pass or consider similar legislation. For example, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recently announced his support for legislation this year to allow Florida’s more than 11,000 collegiate athletes to make money from their name, image and likeness.

We welcome and encourage each of these additional states to take action.

Why? Because the NCAA has a long history of announcing plans for reform that are rarely followed through or were effective. Such fits and starts make it unclear whether the NCAA will actually adopt rules that give college athletes their full name, image and likeness (NIL) rights, comparable with the rights that student-athletes will receive under California's law and the other state proposals.

Money flows, but not to athletes

As co-authors of the Fair Pay to Play Act, our purpose was to give California college athletes access to the free marketplace — just like all other Americans enjoy — but also to spur others to join the cause. We didn’t expect a tidal wave. Yet, as of December, at least 20 other states or state lawmakers have either introduced legislation similar to the Fair Pay to Play Act or have publicly announced plans to do so. Some of these proposals could take effect as early as July.

NCAA logo in Pittsburgh in 2012.(Photo: Keith Srakocic/AP)

It’s a remarkably bipartisan movement. In fact, we’ve discovered there are few things that can bring Democrats and Republicans together more than the desire to reform the NCAA’s deeply unfair rules.

The NCAA, colleges and universities, and TV networks have pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars while athletes — the people most responsible for generating all that wealth — have been denied the right to share in the riches. And public opinion couldn’t be clearer. Polls show that Americans are increasingly in favor of college athletes having the right to be compensated based on their name, image and likeness.

It’s no wonder that the Fair Pay to Play Act attracted numerous Democratic and Republican supporters in California and garnered zero “no” votes in both houses of the California Legislature, racking up a final vote of 112-0.

Likewise, many of the proposals in other states have both Republican and Democratic backers.

NCAA's spotty history of reform

The NCAA’s own past is the clearest indication of why the effort underway in so many states must not let up. Over the years, the NCAA has created three Knight Commissions on collegiate athletics. All three recommended meaningful changes. Yet the NCAA mostly ignored the most important reforms.

In October 2017, after an FBI investigation into men’s college basketball, the NCAA formed yet another commission, naming former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as chair. Just seven months later, Rice said athletes should be able to earn income from their name, image and likeness and urged the NCAA to act when legally possible. But the NCAA didn’t act until more than a year after Rice's remarks — after the Fair Pay to Play Act was signed into law.

Even now, the NCAA is indicating that it might not be ready to embrace full NIL rights, saying it wants any new regulations to be “consistent with the collegiate model.” The NCAA has yet to explain what it meant by this statement, but it raises serious concerns.

For decades, the organization’s traditional “collegiate model” has consisted of barring athletes from earning any money from their name, image and likeness — going so far as to prevent swimmers from teaching swim lessons — while meting out severe punishments for minor transgressions. In other words, the collegiate model has historically been completely incompatible with student-athletes having access to a free market, which is the clear intent of California's law and the other states’ legislation.

NCAA President Mark Emmert said recently that he now wants to work with Congress to establish a national framework for college athletes and NIL rights, rather than leave it up to states. Although this idea might sound promising, there’s no guarantee that it will materialize anytime soon, considering the partisan gridlock in Washington.

As co-authors of the landmark law that spurred this national conversation, we call on states throughout the country to move forward with their bills. College athletes shouldn’t have to wait to get the same right that everyone else enjoys: to earn money from their talent and hard work.

And for those states that haven’t introduced or announced similar legislation, join the fight. After all, if you remain on the sidelines, and the NCAA enacts no real reforms, then student-athletes and colleges and universities in your state will be at a disadvantage when laws like the Fair Pay to Play Act go into effect across the country.

California Sen. Nancy Skinner, a Democrat, was the lead author of SB 206, the Fair Pay to Play Act, and Sen. Scott Wilk, a Republican, was a co-author.